Tall_Priority683

The Brennan Center has argued that Supreme Court justices should serve for 18-year terms, rather than indefinitely, and that Congress could implement this change by statute. This seems like a common-sense reform, but wouldn't it require a constitutional amendment? How would a law passed by Congress overcome Article III's pronouncement that federal "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour"?

Does it matter that Justice Souter voluntarily took senior status? It seems to me that this question depends on how one understands a justice's "office" to be within the meaning of Article III. Obviously that's a question on which reasonable minds can differ, but the better interpretation seems to be that the "office" comprises an active, non-senior seat on the Court. You appear to disagree. Can you explain why the "office" includes being compelled to adopt senior status?

(Also, to the extent Congress enacts term limits, do you think it likely that this Court would uphold such a statute if it were challenged?)

Haven't there also been times when the Court has led public opinion, such as in Brown v. Board? That decision (like many issued by the Warren Court, as you note) also engendered fierce backlash. It seems that the Court deviating from public opinion can sometimes be a good thing, though we may not always be able to distinguish good deviations from bad without the benefit of hindsight.

Is there a way to distinguish good deviations from bad?